Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney animated features' titles in various languages (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Disney animated features' titles in various languages
I'll just shamefully copy and alter the reasons from Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages (2nd nomination) (credit goes to Mangojuice), as I'm in a hurry.

For all these reasons, delete. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) If the article is voted for deletion, at least move it to another wiki that supports film-trivia, such as Film-Flam. Other voters comments about necessity and usefulness are well taken, but are not currently criteria for deletion (maybe they should be, but they're not.) dryguy 16:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) First of all, most Disney films have articles in many other wikis, so the titles of the books in other languages can be obtained there.
 * 2) Second, I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of having articles like this -- WP isn't babelfish.com and it isn't a dictionary either; I think this is unencyclopedic... I know Disney is popular, but if we keep this it's a slippery slope.
 * 3) Third, and perhaps most importantly, if the article were properly sourced, it would look suspiciously like original research, I think: unless someone ELSE has ever written an article or book about the translation of Disney films, we're going to be using entirely primary sources.
 * Comment. Re point 3, there is nothing in WP:OR preventing the use of primary sources.  Spacepotato 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the nominator meant that Wikipedia would be the primary source (since it wouldn't have been printed elsewhere). --FuriousFreddy 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is excessively long, and isn't really necessary. --Coredesat 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like original research. I gotta say, I wish occasionally there were a WP:Unnecessary... Tychocat 10:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, reeks of OR. I said this on other one of these Disney/language/list AFDs, but this sort of cross-language article poses real maintence and verifiability problems and it adds nothing all that useful. - Motor (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and remove them all from the individual Disney feature articles as well. --FuriousFreddy 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep,
 * 1. The presence of information in other wikis is not a criteria for deletion from Wikipedia. Quite the opposite - "no original research" demands that info in Wikipedia has to appear somewhere else, so the nominator's first argument is actually evidence that the article is not original research.
 * 2. Invoking the slippery slope fallacy does not support the deletion of any article. All articles on AfD should be evaluated against the criteria for deletion and not against any other standards.
 * 3. Evidence against original research was presented in point 1.
 * Delete Non-noteworthy information. --InShaneee 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a useful list, contain other languages which English editors is not likely to understand. If someone is looking for the titles in foreign language, they should probably goto their desired title's interwiki links. --WinHunter (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not useful. Use interwiki links if you really want to know. BryanG(talk) 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.